aside I Never Thought I’d Say This, But The US Attorney General Sessions Is Making The Right Decision

AG JEFF SESSIONS

The republican President Donald Trump’s US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has formally declined a formal request by some US congressional republicans on the US Senate Judiciary Committee, to appoint a special counsel to work with the Inspector General in reviewing how the Justice Department and FBI handled specific matters related to the Trump-Russia investigation up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller which would possibly end up including an analysis of past FBI’s handling of the Clinton email/ foundation probe and FISA warrants.

This time the Attorney General Jeff Sessions declined to take this step.

Here is the rest of the story..

On March 29, 2018, Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post penned the following report, “Sessions, for now, rebuffs GOP calls for second special counsel to probe FBI actions in Clinton and Russia probes”

Excerpts:

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday (3/29/18) rebuffed — at least for now — a call from GOP leaders to appoint a second special counsel to look into the FBI’s handling of its most high-profile probes and announced that he has asked the U.S. attorney in Utah to spearhead a broad review.”

SENATORTILLIS

“Sessions made the revelation in a letter to 3 key Republican leaders in the House and Senate who have called on him to appoint a second special counsel, noting that Justice Department regulations call for such appointments only in “extraordinary circumstances,” and that he would need to conclude “the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from the Department of Justice.”

“He asserted that the department has previously tackled high-profile and resource intensive probes, and revealed he had named U.S. attorney John W. Huber to lead a review of the topics that the legislators had requested he explore. Those topics include aspects of the Russia investigation and several matters related to Hillary Clinton and her family’s foundation.”

“I am confident that Mr. Huber’s review will include a full, complete, and objective evaluation of these matters in a manner that is consistent with the law and the facts,” Sessions wrote. “I receive regular updates from Mr. Huber and upon the conclusion of his review, will receive his recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

“Sessions in November had revealed to GOP legislators he had directed senior federal prosecutors to look matters they wanted probed, and he said in an interview with Fox News earlier this month that that review was being led by a person outside of Washington.”

SENATOR GRASSLEY

Background:

Four republican Senators, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and the Texan republican Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn delivered a letter addressed to the US Department of Justice

SOURCE: Website of Senator Chuck Grassley

Mar 15, 2018

WASHINGTON – Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today are seeking the appointment of a special counsel to work with the Inspector General in reviewing how the Justice Department and FBI handled specific matters related to the Trump-Russia investigation up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

“We have the utmost confidence in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion,” the senators wrote in a letter to Justice Department leaders. “However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited.”

On February 28, 2018, Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, wrote to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting a broad review of more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the Trump-Russia probe. But because the Inspector General lacks access to grand jury process and other prosecutorial tools, a special counsel with such authority may be necessary to compel the production of testimony and information that would otherwise be unobtainable.

SENATORS GRASSLEY/ GRAHAM

In their letter to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn and Tillis outline the case for appointment of a special counsel to support an independent OIG investigation, and note that the appointment should occur under the specific Justice Department regulations that govern special counsels and limit the scope of their authority. The senators further request that if the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General determines a special counsel is not appropriate or necessary, then the Department designate a U.S. Attorney’s office or other prosecutor with no real or apparent conflict to work with the Inspector General.

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

As you know, the Department of Justice Inspector General currently is reviewing the Department’s and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.[1] Recently, the Attorney General requested that he also review questions about the Department’s and the FBI’s actions in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.[2] On February 28, based on reviews of related documents and facts gathered thus far in the Committee’s oversight work, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham also requested that the Inspector General broadly review more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the FBI and the Department’s handling of the so-called Trump/Russia investigation and related matters prior to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[3] For reference, we have attached the unclassified portion of that referral.

The January 4, 2018 referral of Christopher Steele requested that the Justice Department reconcile the statements he made in British libel litigation against him with contrary statements he reportedly made to the FBI, as described in the FISA application. The referral took no position as to which were true, but asked the Justice Department whether Mr. Steele misrepresented the facts to the FBI and whether the FBI inaccurately reported the facts to the court. Based on the release of the memorandum drafted by the minority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI has now provided a further un-redacted version of that referral memorandum, also attached here.[4] The new version provides the public for the first time the actual quote from the FISA application that we flagged for the Justice Department as inconsistent with claims made in the British libel litigation filings. The attached request to the Inspector General asked that he investigate issues surrounding the application and renewals of the FISA warrant. It also requested that he review potential improprieties in the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the potential conflicts of interest posed by the involvement of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr in serving as the cut-out between the FBI and Mr. Steele after the FBI terminated its formal relationship with him, apparent unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the press, the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and other matters.

We have the utmost confidence in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion. However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of independence to ensure that the public can have confidence in the outcome.

To ensure that the appointment of a special counsel rests on a clear, well-defined predicate and scope, and to give the American people the fullest possible confidence in his or her independence and authority, we believe that the appointment should specifically cite, rely on, and follow the Department’s regulations governing such an appointment, including specifically 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.4.

If you are unwilling to take this step, please send us a detailed reply explaining why not. We look forward to your response.

10 comments

My jaw literally dropped when I received the breaking news that Sessions has, at least for the moment, stood up for the right thing, and stood against the republican mouthpieces. I was shocked, but pleased. I cannot help but wonder two things: a) what made him decide to fight the tide and refuse to hire a second special counsel, at least for the moment, and b) what will happen to him as a result of this. Trump has already made noises about replacing Sessions … might this be the end of the line for him? Is he aware of that and just wanted to make one last stand? I have no answers, only questions, but for the moment I am cautiously optimistic. Hugs!!!

I was equally shocked. This was so out of what I would have expected that I started to do a little checking to see if Mr. Sessions had other motivations. Sure enough, his behavior has gotten greater attention from the Special Counsel Mr. Mueller where it pays for him to be on his best behavior.

It could not have been easy to turn down his fellow senators on the US Senate Judiciary Committee where he used to serve.

I wondered if, given Trump’s thinly-veiled threats to Sessions, he finally saw the ultimate handwriting on the wall and decided to take this stance more to annoy Trump, since he’s likely to be fired at some point anyway. But your explanation makes more sense. Hugs!!!

Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
For once in his life, at least, Jeff Sessions has made the right decision. The breaking news set my phone off this afternoon as I was attending house chores, and my jaw literally dropped to the floor. I was prepared to research and investigate, but I find that our friend Gronda has done an excellent job with this story, and since I have absolutely promised Miss Goose that I would play a game with her tonight, I am sharing, con permiso, Gronda’s excellent and timely post. Thank You, Gronda!!! And now, please wish me luck in my battle against the little pro in a game of Mario Party!

This is the ugly belly of politics. The Senators on the judiciary committee were hoping that Mr. Sessions who used to be one of them would give in to their demands for a special counsel that is totally uncalled for in this instance. Hillary Clinton does not need to be investigated one more time. The democrats memo in response to the Nunes memo put the FISA warrant issue to bed.

The republicans are grasping at straws to salvage their president’s and their hides.

Gronda, it is a good sign that he came to this conclusion. In part, he may be doing to lessen scrutiny on his role in all this. I continue to think of Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters’ resignation letter from Fox, where he calls the network on the carpet for aiding an effort to harm our constitution and support an unethical President (his words). These GOP Senators and the House Reps need to be reminded to whom they pledged their oath. Keith

The right is getting desperate. The irony is that at one point, I also wanted a review of the FBI’s agents behaviors. Their actions definitely did not favor Hillary Clinton but those calling for the special counsel seem to have forgotten that the FBI cost Mrs. Clinton the election.